Liberty Squandered

What Exactly is Liberty?

 

           However intuitive an idea that freedom may seem, it appears that it is a rather difficult one to completely conceptualize.  In fact, most people claim to want to be free, but are vehemently resistant to that which comprises liberty.  So, what does it mean to be free or, more appropriately, what does it mean to live in a free society?  This is, I believe, the ultimate question of societal development; and one that has been quite elusive for most generations of humans. 

            James Madison noted in 1792 that “Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race.”  Madison’s words were quite spot on in this observation.  Regardless of the commonly held belief that slavery was, perhaps, a uniquely American and specifically white tradition, the truth is that humans have always sought to place their fellow man in servitude.  However, servitude comes in many forms, albeit the economic form is the most focused upon, it is not the only type of servitude.  The servitude I wish to focus on in this brief writing is that of the social form. 

            Both sides of the ideological “aisle” believe that they have the key to engineering a more perfect society…that if they could only make people behave the way they believe is right, then society could finally be righteous and operate in perfect harmony.  Whether these social engineers operate from an elected position, a bureaucratic one, a pulpit, or an educational institution is irrelevant.  What is relevant is their fundamental belief that if other individuals are not free to act or behave of their own free will, society will be better off and subsequently so will said individual.  This is not freedom, nor is it liberty.  Instead it is servitude.  It is the idea that one person should have a claim on another’s life. 

            Imagine for a moment the liberal progressive who stands in staunch support of a woman’s right to make choices for her own body while simultaneously holding that people should not be able to determine how it is best to employ the fruits of their own body’s labors (which is their earnings).  Now take the traditional conservative who believes that guns do not kill people; however, they can seem quite certain that casinos make people gamble, liquor stores make people into drunks, and prostitutes make people have sex.  Is this likeness in the subversion of one’s fellow citizens unique to liberals or conservatives…or perhaps it is a Republican and Democratic phenomenon?  No, it is not unique.  It is, however, a common human behavior. 

            To truly discover and enjoy freedom, we must all be able to accept one fundamental truth:  freedom is uncomfortable at times.  If there does not exist a point in time in our society in which each of us are made uncomfortable by the actions of our fellow citizens then freedom has eluded us.  For example, there is no need for a First Amendment to protect popular speech—by definition popular speech needs no protection.  We must accept that people have the right to say stupid things, believe absurd things, and act in ways which we might not condone or endorse.  Additionally, as free people we always reserve the right to call their words, ideas, and actions stupid.   We do not, under any definition of a free society, have the right to legislate their words, thoughts, or actions out of existence; lest we hold it acceptable for them to do the same to us once the political winds shift.

U.S. Foreign Relations with Russia: Is the “Soviet Bear” really dead or just hibernating?

*What follows is an academic paper I wrote in October of 2012 which has some interesting background facts on Putin and the state of Russian politics.  Additionally, I feel compelled to point out that I had a much firmer grasp on foreign policy than the Obama administration.  I am unsure, however, whether having an edge on the Obama administration is truly something worth bragging about.

 

              We live as a part of a highly dynamic world; ever in flux, with new potential challenges and rewards just around every corner.  It is the simple complexity of our world that creates difficulties in determining the right path to take and, often, keeps the US in a reactionary mode in dealing with problems abroad.  However, there are keys to unlocking the future, and steps that may be taken to best predict the next great challenge(s) our nation faces.  Understanding where we have been can often shed light on that which we are headed for; just as many disciplines of study, understanding the foreign affairs of the past positions the US to best accomplish the goals for the future.  The US is in a unique global position which affords us and our allies a certain level of security, while simultaneously providing great incentive to those who would wish to occupy our position in the global hierarchy.  There are no simple answers for determining our next great challenges, just as there were no guarantees of predicting recent history.  Still, we must persevere in obtaining that all-elusive truth of what it is exactly we do face and not always dwell on that which we wish we were facing.

            There are potentially innumerable threats lurking in the coming years; but there are signs that point to one of the next great foreign policy challenges being one we are rather familiar with:  Russia.  For those that clearly remember the Cold War and the fear inherent of a pending nuclear disaster, such as the Cuban Missile crisis, cynicism towards the remnants of the Soviet power would be natural.  This is a rather likely apprehension towards a foe, suddenly turned ‘friend,’ which was handed from one generation to the next; down to those of us who remember new global maps on a yearly basis in high school as the tapestry of Soviet power unraveled at the seams.  However, there is an old adage ‘that just because you are paranoid, does not mean they are not after you’; and this is an important distinction. 

            Recent, post-Cold War changes in Russia give a certain level of credibility to the idea that Russia may be the Soviet bear in a state of hibernation rather than a fledging new democracy with similar goals as the US.  It is incumbent upon us to understand the recent changes shaping Russia’s domestic and foreign prerogatives and apply that to the not-too-distant history of conflict and antagonism between the US and Russia.  Next, we must make the effort to understand the state of the Russia and place into perspective what options the people and their leaders may have; with a particular focus on the preeminent leader of the former Soviet core, Vladimir Putin.  What strategic moves and alliances are the leaders of Russia making and nurturing and what does that indicate for the future?  Finally, and most importantly, we should reflect upon our own foreign policy of recent years and how we are likely to engage Russia in the future. 

It is from these considerations that we may be able to predict potential situations of conflict in our ongoing relations with Russia and what appears to be a growing divide between our two nations.  After gaining an understanding of where we stand we are much better prepared to gain an impression of where we are going.  Imagine the advantage, to not only our nation, but to the world if we might actually be able to foster friendship in the face of pending conflict.

There seems little necessity in belaboring the events of the Cold War except to highlight the, often times, monolithic nature of the Soviet threat to the US and the world.  What does bear some examination is the political, economic, and social environment of Russia in the years since the Soviet collapse.  From the ashes of dictatorial governing under the Soviet regime came the rise of what seemed to be a new democratic state, eager to reenter the global community.  It was thought that post-Soviet Russia would embrace the concepts of a market-economy and, in it, discover a new era of prosperity for its people.  This, however, was not to be the case. 

Although the new leader of the independent Russian state, Boris Yeltsin, advocated democracy and capitalism, Michael McFaul (2000) points out the general lack of understanding in Russia as to what that exactly meant; particularly after spending the better part of a century under a command economy (pp. 51).  In fact, McFaul (2000) points out that there was less than a consensus across the country in precisely what economic and political system was desired; and Yeltsin came to the quick realization, not unlike other reformers and revolutionaries, that toppling a system was much easier than establishing one (pp. 52).  Yeltsin, and other leaders new to the concepts of democracy and capitalism, found great difficulty in making the transition from the iron fisted will in which communist leaders could rule to a free system of trade and governing. 

One of the primary factors contributing to the economic decay which, would make true reform impossible, was the ascendancy of the oligarchs.  Under Yeltsin, concern with the prospect that the “population might soon have a change of heart and turn its back on reform…decided to accelerate it [privatization], selling off state resources and enterprises at little or no charge (Goldman, 2004, pp. 35).  Goldman (2004) points out that through the “Loans for Shares” program Russian banks ended up being the direct beneficiaries of the auctions they were tasked with operating in order to privatize state controlled resources (pp. 35).  The result was an oligarchy based system that was more representative of old aristocracies than free market democracies. 

Yeltsin’s tenure also saw another great challenge.  In his attempt to stimulate a new free market system, the political system was all but ignored (McFaul, 2000, pp. 53).  Yeltsin’s inaction in making sure the political underpinnings were in place to support a free market resulted in a highly fragmented polity.  Furthermore, Garnett (1997) indicates the continued use of previous Soviet institutions and officials served to exacerbate the political problems faced during that period as Ministers of the government and military leaders took it upon themselves to determine their own best course of action (pp. 64-65).  Instead of a legacy of revolution and bravery in overturning a communist regime that survived for over 70 years, Yeltsin’s legacy at the time he left office was of a man who left Russia in worse economic and political turmoil than when he assumed power.  It is noteworthy that he also left the people of Russia, and the world, with Vladimir Putin; leaving us to wonder whether Owen Harries (1989) questions about the trend towards freedom in the Soviet Union (now Russia) was accurately assessing just another example of an interlude of freedom in a culture with a history of dictatorship (pp. 45).

Vladimir Putin, a former member of the KGB, ascended to the position of Prime Minister by appointment from Yeltsin after being an effective chief of domestic security (Knight and Blair, 2000, pp. 35).  Also, prior to being named Prime Minister, Putin also served as the head of Yeltsin’s Security Council at a time when Yeltsin was being threatened with impeachment; a position from which Putin was able to effectively intimidate the parliament and blackmail the prosecutor-general (Knight and Blair, 2000, pp. 35).  Shortly after being named Prime Minister, Putin was named as Yeltsin’s successor to the presidency, a title which he would maintain after a subsequent election.  Knight and Blair (2000) point out that in a time which Russian citizens valued order over freedom, Putin fit the bill rather nicely as he had “built an image as a tough, aggressive, anti-Western super-patriot”; exhibiting his strength in his handling of Chechnya and in his view towards the rest of the world (pp. 36).  However, as long as the people are behind him, it is easy to maintain the appearance of freedom and democratic rule to the nations of the world.

Although there is plentiful evidence of a Russian system that is fundamentally flawed and thus ripe with opportunity for anti-Western antagonism, the truly relevant facts lie in what America has and will do to prevent a rerun of the half century period following WWII.  There is no easy answer as to what amount of conflict avoidance is within US control and it is clearly beyond US foreign policy makers to dictate the path the citizens or government of Russia might take; however, we can work towards not only understanding, but accepting the potential for a foreign relations disaster that a reactionary Russian government might mean to the US and our global allies and interests. 

The problems with American post-Cold War policy towards Russia arose almost as quickly as the great power had fallen.  As the Soviet monolith was crumbling, President Bush and his administration were caught in between two philosophical concepts: 1) work to shore up and stabilize the existing Soviet structure and 2) abandon the established relationship with Gorbachev and embrace Yeltsin (Cox, 1994, pp. 639).  This seems to have been a battle of philosophies within the president and his administration between realism, which more easily permits dealing with autocracies to further the national interests, and idealism which compels us to see a greater good to be had in following principles over pragmatism.  This period of indecision left the first Bush administration open to severe criticism over the US’s management of the Soviet implosion and, among other factors, lead to the election of Bill Clinton into the White House.

Simultaneous with the division between upper policy makers and their would-be replacements was a media frenzy of the developments of freedom in the Soviet Union and its collapse which opened the doors for the people of Russia to engage in a new destiny of freedom and cooperation.  It is not difficult to remember the sentiment of the American people at the time that the greatest threat to our own lives had finally given way to a new era of freedom that seemed inevitable in the wake of the Soviet collapse.  This, coupled with the new rise of an idealistic view of the prerogative of the Russian people on the part of foreign policy elites, gives further evidence to the flaw inherent in ignoring cultural relativism.  Idealism holds somewhat to the assumption that it is the leaders of a nation that are reflected in the policies of the state only, and ignores any relevance that it just may be the philosophies of the people of different states which are in conflict.  In other words, the people of an enemy state are inherently good; it is only their leaders who promulgate any dissention between the two countries.  Of course, hoping that tensions, between the US and a once equally strong adversary the likes of the Soviet Union, will be diminished organically is not bad; instead, it may just lack insight.

The Clinton administration took over the dealings with the new Russian federation with zeal towards propping up reform movements and guiding the move towards a free market democracy (Cox, 1994, pp. 646).  This goal of nurturing Russia into a mirror image ally was pressed by Clinton’s primary advisor on Russian affairs, Strobe Talbott, and would eventually fall short.  There were several obstacles toward shoring up Russian political and economic interests Cox (1994) points out, not the least of which was a continuing conflict between former Soviet states and the remnant of their oppressors (pp. 647).  Additionally, Yeltsin even joined into the resurgent anti-western sentiments of the Russian people and establishment in the face of US attempts to fast-track the Russian state into line with western (particularly American) thinking (Cox, 1994, pp. 648). 

The hopes of a fresh, new relationship with an old rival had fundamentally dissipated with the inability for Russian leaders to enact what they had promised; a free Russia filled with hope for a better future.  Instead, by the end of the nineties, the Russian economy stood at less than half the capacity of the anemic Soviet economy that was revolted against (McFaul, 2000, pp. 45).  Arguably, the increased contention between the US and Russia was (at least partially) due to the appearance of the US micro-managing the reforms being attempted in Russia, thus resulting in a retreat from the west by the Russians.  McNamara and Blight (2001) later warned of the folly of any humiliation, and how it would serve as an impetus towards conflict, when they wrote of the factors which lead to a second rising of Germany in an attempt at world dominance which culminated in the ascension of Hitler’s Third Reich and the devastation that followed (pp. 68).  Although well-intentioned in not wanting to miss an opportunity at developing a strong ally in Russia, the Clinton administration may have pushed too far, too fast; leaving the Russian leadership appearing a bit impotent to the world at large (at least from their own perspective).  President Clinton did experience some victories, but the results of Russian reform were largely out of his hands.

However, a new era of US-Russia relations was soon to begin with the election of George W. Bush to the presidency and the appointment of Vladimir Putin to lead Russia.  As the new decade began, antagonism was reestablished between the two states.  The Bush administration took the Russian leadership “to task for arm sales to Iran” and the continued fighting in Chechnya (Bremmer and Zalavsky, 2001, pp. 12).  The rhetoric would begin to change to potential reconciliation with the events of September 11, 2001.  The US and Russia would find new common ground in the war on terrorism as both had an interest in reducing the destabilizing effects of terrorism.  The new found partnership between Bush and Putin in a common goal elevated feelings that long term friendship and reconciliation over past conflict may be possible.  Albeit far from perfect, the immediate years following September 11, 2001 seemed to have ushered in true cooperation between the two countries and, perhaps most importantly, between their respective leaders (Gladkyy, 2003, pp. 7). 

As the decade moved on, there was a slow trend of regression from cooperation to heightened antipathy which came to a head (of sorts) with the Russian invasion of Georgia in August, 2008.  This invasion seemed to provide the Russian leader with a significant amount of information.  First, timing the invasion during the Beijing Olympics, provided significant cover for the action from gaining widespread media coverage (Maginnis, 2008).  Second, it seemed to test the resolve of the US, particularly while still under the leadership of a president with severely diminished political capital.  At the same time, coinciding with a new presidential election season in America gave Putin the opportunity to test the waters as to what kind of response President Bush’s successor may have to Russian aggression.  Georgia was a valued US ally amongst the former Soviet bloc countries, and our inability to respond outside of expressing disappointment gave Putin all the answers he would need.  A weak response from President Bush and, at best, a muted response from the two men who wished to replace Bush was evidence that the US had shifted its focus away from Russia and onto more pressing concerns; such as the Middle East and the economic crisis at home. 

Furthermore, as Maginnis (2008) pointed out, President Saakashvili believed the invasion of Georgia additionally served as a notice to all neighboring “former Soviet-era satellite states” that “western orientation” will not be responded to kindly.  This is plausible and harkens back to time in which Leonid Brezhnev enacted similar warnings so as to prevent any wholesale withdrawal from socialism and Soviet control (Wittkopf, et al, 2008, pp. 151). 

When taking this period of the Bush administration into perspective it seems as if Putin may have been executing an almost perfect game of “three card monte” on the US.  When encountered with criticism from Bush, Putin saw an opportunity (following 9/11) to endear the Russian state to the US and build a feeling of cooperation; all the while continuing the same activity that was originally considered unacceptable.  When Putin sensed a weak moment in US foreign policy toward the end of President Bush’s second term, he took the opportunity to test the resolve of the international community, the US leadership, and perhaps foreshadow a future where expansionism would once again be the preferred tool of the Russian leadership.  For example, four years since the invasion of Georgia and the Six Point Ceasefire Agreement that ended the conflict and there remains approximately 10,000 Russian troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia; representing “20 percent of Georgia’s internationally recognized territory and is in direct violation” of the treaty brokered by (then) French President Nicolas Sarkozy (Coffey, 2012, “Georgia and Russia…”).

During the Bush administration the focus, what was left of it anyway, came off of traditional intelligence concerns and was focused on a shift in overall defense preparedness and intelligence acquisition.  Wittkopf, et al (2008) indicates an overall reduction in human intelligence, preferring increased technological sources, as a contributing factor for the attacks of September 11, 2001 (pp. 399).  Although, President Bush sought to reverse this post-Cold War trend of decreasing human intelligence sources; it can be safely estimated that much of those new resources have been put toward the war on terrorism.  When we add to this a wholesale realignment of the defense and intelligence community, it would be hardly imaginable that, to cope with the new and imminent threat posed by terrorist organizations, much of any remaining intelligences resources in the former Soviet bloc region would not have been either reassigned to the Middle East or exchanged for fresh, new intelligence operators; more schooled and prepared to work in the Muslim world. 

Out of fairness to the Bush administration, the choices available in making adjustments to the new course would have been considerably limited due to the response the American public had to the attacks.  Any perceived lag in government action in confronting the new enemy by either the administration or Congress could have had calamitous effects for the US.  Not only would safety have been a potential issue, but increased economic backlash (particularly during a recession beginning primarily in 2000) from citizen perceived weakness in the federal government’s ability to protect its citizens; these factors would have only worsened the situation domestically.  However, in a total restructuring, we potentially allow the urgent to outweigh the important and the increasing assertiveness, and even aggression, on the part of the Russians should serve as a stark reminder to not lose sight of any priorities. 

This poses a dilemma, not just for presidents in the near future, but for the intelligence community as well.  The shift from Cold War techniques to anti-terror strategies leaves the US with a learning curve in gaining assets that can facilitate strong intelligence; particularly challenging when dealing with a nation such as Russia, which is renowned for its capability in intelligence gathering and counterintelligence.  Granted, it would be foolish to think that the US had ever withdrawn all of its intelligence capability from the region, but it would be reasonable to assert it has diminished its capacity dramatically.  The effect of diminished intelligence would be a folly that spanned two administrations.  The initial cutback in human intelligence capacity has been attributed to the Clinton administration by then CIA director George Tenet who stated that the administration’s decision was based on too much criminal behavior and human rights abuses by assets (Limbacher, 2004, “Tenet in Slap…”).   Additionally, the Bush administration would be at fault for its seeming inability to see the potential need for solid intelligence in Russia in the near future, particularly in light of Russia’s posturing on certain issues and situations.  Seeing that in 2004, Tenet also stated it would take at least five additional years of “rebuilding our clandestine service” just to get to high enough levels to effectively fight the war on terrorism, it becomes rational to assume that other fronts might still be left relatively unmonitored (Limbacher, 2004, “Tenet in Slap…”).   These statements from Tenet not only indicate an intelligence community drawn down to anemic levels under the leadership of one president, but the replenishing of those capabilities being singularly applied by another.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, our position toward Russian international policies has not changed remarkably from that at the end of the Bush administration.  Russia continues to be suspected of dealing heavily in weapons and even nuclear technology to nations like Iran who would generally be considered as aggressors in rhetoric (at the very least).  Additionally, our government has seemed to heed “warnings” from the Russians to not intervene in the revolution taking place in Syria; although, there was little hesitation in intervening in similar uprisings in Egypt and Libya.  Whether or not we are idealists or realists, it might be prudent to realize that Russia bases its foreign policy on realism; therefore, we must be mindful that regardless of the US view of power as a determining factor of state actions that Russia is certainly cognizant of power as an influencer in foreign affairs.  The chapter on the Obama administration has yet to be completed though; therefore, we are at the mercy of the future to some extent. 

For the foreseeable future, I would predict an increase in Putin’s desire to explore the limits as to what the US will be willing to overlook in their (Russia’s) quest to regain status in the international community.  As oil prices continue to stay high, the rich oil reserves of Russia, and the leverage they can provide diplomatically, will continue to be a growing factor in the equation.  It seems reasonable that, if it is truly Putin’s goal to begin reestablishing a Soviet Union style empire, that former satellite states will be targeted for reincorporation into the federation.  Perhaps an initial move into the smaller satellites such as Azerbaijan, Armenia, Estonia, and Latvia with a vision set on bigger prizes such as Ukraine.  It will be interesting to see what course Putin may take in the event a new president is elected in November of this year; a new leader can often mean new limits and the campaign rhetoric certainly indicates a contrast between the president and his challenger.

All the military underpinnings still exist that could take Russia from a country in economic despair to a formidable military powerhouse in a short period of time.  The US would be wise to keep close tabs on Russian alliances such as Iran, Syria, and China (particularly the latter for its shared communist tradition).  All three are impressive allies in the region for Russia, although it seems less likely that China would wish to abandon its economic boom for another stroll down the lane of economic isolation that would be likely if tensions escalated too much. 

The executive branch must stay engaged and not be too narrow sighted as to the threats of the day.  Cabinet members, aides, advisors, and the Joint Chief’s will all play a pivotal role (regardless of whose administration) in managing the potential Russian threat in the future.  Unfortunately, predicting how these players will act and react is difficult.  The group of people making up this foreign policy core can change dramatically every four years and I would assume any direct threats may still be at least a decade away. 

Additionally, responsibility must fall upon Congress as a check on executive decisions, particularly in the ultra-polarized political climate we are presently faced with; however, those members in Congress that sit on intelligence committees must act as honest brokers for, if ever there was a “water’s edge,” this would be it.  Fortunately, we can count on the military industrial complex to assist in these oversight and monitoring activities, as there would be tremendous benefit if the Cold War was to come out of thaw.  However, there has been what I would assess as lag in media response to this reemerging threat.  This lack of media interest drives the (perhaps unintended) apathy of the common citizen in not having any electoral focus on this matter.  We are, as citizens, far too consumed with the specter of terrorism; thus illustrating the often times singular, limited focus of Americans on issues of foreign policy.

Certainly, the exact details of whatever unfolds in the coming years between Russia and the US will be heavily dependent on the leadership of the two states.  Seeing that Russia’s leadership has been relatively static over the last dozen years, the variables will arise from those leaders chosen in America.  Just as different presidents tended to usher in variations in foreign policy towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War; the presidents and their appointees will be quite instrumental in determining the outcome of the growing struggle between the two historic foes.  Just in the current campaign we can see a divergence of position on relations with Putin’s Russia, pointing towards a continued application of the hero-in-history model.  Subsequently, those choices are made through a rational decision making model; however, it is instrumental rationality which separates one president’s vision from another.  Idealist presidents tend towards idealist solutions, while those presidents with a strong core in realism are likely to view the very same challenges in often completely different ways.  The challenge to our presidents arises from the fact that it is impossible to know which strategy is ultimately right until the game is over.

 

References

Bremmer, Ian and Zaslavsky, Alexander (2001).  “Bush and Putin’s Tentative Embrace,” World   Policy Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Winter, 2001/2002), pp. 11-17.  Retrieved from:      http://www.jstor.org/stable/40209773

Coffey, Luke (2012).  “Georgia and Russia:  The Occupation Too Many Have Forgotten,”            Heritage Foundation; May 31, 2012.  Retrieved from:  http://blog.heritage.    org/2012/05/31/georgia-and-russia-the-occupation-too-many-have-forgotten/

Cox, Michael (1994).  “The Necessary Partnership?  The Clinton Presidency and Post-Soviet        Russia,” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 70,            No. 4 (Oct., 1994), pp. 635-658.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2624551

Garnett, Sherman (1997).  “Russia’s Illusory Ambitions,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 2 (Mar. – Apr., 1997), pp. 61-76.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20047937

Gladkyy, Oleksandr (2003).  “American Foreign Policy and U.S. Relations with Russia and          China after 11 September,” World Affairs, Vol. 166, No. 1 (Summer 2003), pp. 3-23.         Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20672674

Goldman, Marshall I. (2004).  “Putin and the Oligarchs,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 6 (Nov. –             Dec., 2004), pp. 33-44.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20034135

Harries, Owen (1989).  “Is the Cold War Really Over?”  National Review, November 10, 1989;    pp. 41-45.  Retrieved from:  ProQuest Central.

Knight, Amy and Ruble, Blair A. (2000).  “The Two Worlds of Vladimir Putin,” The Wilson         Quarterly (1976-), Vol. 24, No. 2 (Spring, 2000), pp. 32-41.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/40260036

Limbacher, Carl (2004).  “Tenet in Slap at Clinton CIA Cutbacks,” Free Republic, February 5,     2004.  Retrieved from:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072169/posts

Maginnis, Robert (2008).  “Russian Invasion of Georgia is an East-West Tipping Point,” Human   Events; August 8, 2008.  Retrieved from:   http://www.humanevents.com/2008/08/11/            russian-invasion-of-georgia-is-an-eastwest-tipping-point/

McFaul, Michael (2000).  “Yeltsin’s Legacy,” Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol. 24, No. 2 (Spring,   2000), pp. 42-47, 50-58.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/40260037

 McNamara, Robert S. and Blight, James G. (2001).  :In from the Cold:  A new Approach to        Relations with Russia and China,” World Policy Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Spring, 2001),    pp. 67-77.  Retrieved from:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/40209733

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

Government is Force: The Uncomfortable Truth People Wish to Avoid.

It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.

—Ayn Rand

            Our society speaks of things like social justice as if it were a victimless activity.  As though giving to someone deemed “less fortunate” entails only the act giving without the taking.  Where then does this magical manna come from if not from another citizen?  Clearly it comes from someone who is rich or simply has what some deem to be “too much,” right?  Let’s assume it does, is the moral righteousness of theft based on the size of the victim’s bank account?  If that is in fact the case, should not most white collar crimes be considered righteous?  Or, for example, if you carjack a Maserati are you not merely taking what is not deserved by the owner of that car? 

            The rich are hardly the only ones who are victims of our entitled society; anyone who falls into some sort of minority can find themselves targets of our burgeoning tyranny of democracy.  If the limits on individual rights to property are up for a vote, then where do the limits of the state lay?  In a society which justifies activity by a majority (more aptly, plurality) opinion, no limits exist; instead, the law is a shifting tide dictated by mob behavior and “popular” ideas.  I can take your money, your property, and (more poignantly accurate) your very life as long as I can convince enough of my fellow citizens to direct the government to forcibly remove those things from you at the point of a gun. 

You say that no one is taking another’s life, but only their money; excess money at that?  How is it exactly that we earn money?  Time!  Time of our life spent producing, thinking, building, growing, and teaching; and by endorsing the government confiscation and redistribution of people’s money we are very much endorsing the taking of people’s lives; one hour at a time.  You cannot ask another for $10 without considering that the money you ask for represents a portion of their life spent earning (assuming they have earned that money).  Likewise, you cannot empower government to separate them from that same $10 by force without considering that government has taken the time that money represents from them. 

The cold reality that people wish to ignore is that if that person gets paid $10/hr. then your government has exercised your desire to steal that hour from them; forcibly take those minutes, those breaths, and those heartbeats from them as if they rightfully belong to you or someone else.  That activity relegates that producer to the role of slave and you take on the role of slave owner.  What gives us the right to prey on our fellow citizens?  Nothing!  Still, we try to justify it with absurd notions of social justice and fairness.  Those who are comfortable voting the confiscation of other’s money are no different than the pimp on the street corner preying on their hookers or the mobster running a protection scheme on businesses.  Try as we may to justify our actions as assistance or some altruistic heroism; we are merely common thieves who ply our trade at the ballot box because we lack the courage to steal from others in person.

 

 

The Fallacy of Greed

 

Greed…what a fun word!  It is that invisible cause of all of society’s problems, right?  Have an older car or smaller house than your neighbor?  Don’t beat yourself up, they are obviously greedy.  Textile manufacturing is now (predominantly) overseas?  Duh…just a greedy capitalist.  Walmart not forking over that mythical thing called a “living wage?”  They are blatantly exhibiting their own greed.  She has too much; he has too little…all byproducts of American greed, right? 

Effort is good, the old college try they used to say; but don’t you dare actually succeed because clearly you have morphed into just a common greedy piece of trash.  Here is an interesting question then:  If, in fact, a person who develops a product for which millions wish to pay for is greedy; what do we call a person who is willing to live for nothing off the labors of others?  Ah, I remember now, we call them victims of American greed.  Instead might I suggest we call them greedy victimizers of Americans; merely a semantic difference, I am sure.  

The convenience of greed lay in its ability to be arbitrarily blamed for anything.  Those on the left have made careers playing on peoples’ petty jealousy through use of the word greed.  People have justified the taking of others’ property because of greed; however, greed cannot be proven and, perhaps more importantly, cannot be disproven.  How does one combat an accusation of greed?  They cannot, which is why it is such a powerful tool of the politician to ensure support from those who Bastiat noted “wish to live at the expense of others.” 

Legalized theft and redistribution gains its mandate from this notion of greed, but how do we define greed exactly?  If greed is to be defined as the desire and effort to take something from people which is not theirs, then who is greedy?  Can we rightfully call Steve Jobs greedy because he created things which many were willing to trade money for?  Or would that title be more properly attributed to the 23 year old which, instead of practicing responsibility, decides to live off the welfare system?  I would say the latter; our president would likely say the former.  A person who makes a living at the point of a gun is, in my estimation, greedy.  There is little difference between someone who is able-bodied and living (almost) exclusively off the taxpayer than there is a common gangster.  Both prey off of those unable to defend themselves from their oppressors, the only difference is the mobster at least has the courage to do their own dirty work.    

 

 

Regulation Is Not Our Salvation

          There is much talk of regulation and the need for it in every aspect of our “dangerous capitalistic” society; however, there is seldom talk of what regulation is and of what precisely it accomplishes.  Ironically, the very people who exhibit the greatest disdain for “big business” are often the most ardent supporters of regulation (besides the big businesses themselves, of course).  Democrats, and statists of all parties, are particularly interested in imposing regulations for the stated purpose of controlling the “animal instincts” of the free market.  These are the same people who often deride big business publicly for taking advantage of consumers and keeping the “little man” down.  And this is where it becomes interesting. 

          What if I were to tell you that regulation is largely designed to do that very thing and that the politicians who both advocate and introduce regulation understand very clearly that it will remove competition by restricting new market participants?  I know, I know--many people out there will be shaking their heads in outright refusal of this assertion.  I can just hear it now:  “we need government to protect us from big corporations”; or “that’s not what the news said”; or “Obama said we deregulated too much.”  Food for thought, though:  big opponents of airline deregulation were the (big) airlines and the big opponents of trucking deregulation?...you guessed it, the (big) trucking companies.  That, by the way, is not an isolated situation.

          Now, before people start into the irrational argument that I hate all regulation or that I am an anarchist; try to refrain from acting arbitrarily dramatic, ‘cause it just ain’t true!  Here is an example of the real world scenario and why most regulation is not only supported by “big business,” but also why they (and their lobbyists) write a significant amount of the legislation. 

          Let us assume that I am a builder of houses in a small economy with a relatively static population (a miniature US, for example).  I am the only builder of houses as I have been an innovator in early house building technology.  Let us also assume I hired you to work for me as my helper and you worked your way up to foreman over some amount of time.  At this point you realize that you know everything you would need to provide the same service that I do, but feel you can do it more cheaply (because I am operating as a monopolist and thus my pricing is artificially high).  So, you strike out on your own and begin competing with me.  This does not please me for obvious reasons. 

          So, I go see the executive (president/governor) of this “state” we live and work in and I convince him that we should, for the safety of all consumers, get control of the house building market and pass some regulations so that amateur and dangerous new builders do not hurt anyone financially or physically.  The executive, not wanting his constituents hurt or angry sees great value in regulation that will control the evil capitalists (besides me, of course as I will be grandfathered in…) and will make one of his major campaign contributors happy.  He goes to the legislative branch and convinces them to draft a law; however, how can these lawmakers draft regulations about housing that will safeguard their citizens when they themselves have never built houses?  Hmmmm…Wait, they have an idea—they should approach the local expert for help in constructing these regulations.  My phone rings and I gladly accept my civic duty of drawing up regulations for housing standards so that I am guaranteed customers…I mean, so that the citizens are safe!

          Now, back to you, my only competitor; if am lucky I can build in professional fees and licensing, insurance, or even capital requirements that create a great enough obstacle to you not being able to continue in the market.  If not, I have almost guaranteed that neither of our employees will likely ever be able to afford to compete with us.   Here is the best part, though.  Having seen how well the appeal to citizens to safeguard them from “greedy profit-driven” capitalists worked out for his polling numbers; the executive decides to move on to another market segment.  Once again, this executive finds great public support (who doesn’t want to be safer) and also finds he has more campaign contributions rolling in from companies which no longer have to fear any significant competition in their field. 

          Here is the reality and the bad side of this equation.  First, capitalism in this example no longer exists (incidentally, there has not been true capitalism in the U.S. for many decades except perhaps in some isolated market segments).  The little man has been effectively “held down” and kept out of the marketplace.  Skill, pricing, or a combination of the two is no longer that which is primarily supplied by market participants; instead, the ability to navigate the political waters and afford to pay for these regulatory burdens is what determines market participation. 

          Second, the government has created a moral hazard in which the citizenry no longer feels responsible for ensuring quality in the products and services they purchase; additionally, government takes on no liability that the work they attest to (through regulatory obstacles) is of high or even good quality.  For example, if you have a house built, it will have to be approved by government inspectors on many occasions for different purposes.  However, if that house burns down later from faulty wiring that was inspected; the government that essentially told you it was safe carries no liability.  This begs a tangential question:  what is the point, exactly?

          Third, in fields that are “regulated” it has been made essentially illegal for people to work.  To license something is defined as:  the ability to grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.  If something requires a license, it is otherwise illegal—ergo, it is illegal to work and earn a living if the government does not permit you to do so.  Yet another disincentive towards working, just what we need!

          The rise in corporations over the last century is not due to not enough government.  Inversely, it is due to too much government.  I understand there is a long held belief in most people that government is there to help us, but we must get beyond misconceptions and use logic to approach questions.  Whether a politician is well-intentioned or not, regulation still results in the same thing.  Also, do not believe the hype that the Bush administration marked the biggest rollback of regulations in modern history—that could not be further from the truth.  In fact, if you are a fan of regulation, you should have a picture of “W” over your mantle right next to your picture of Obama.

          If people actually understand what the true effects of regulation are, it is likely that we will tolerate less of it.  However, I understand there is a draw in believing in wholesale regulation; the comfort of feeling like someone evil and rich is being halted on their wicked quest for world domination is probably great.  But, perception a reality does not make.  Regulation is the pet of “big business” that does not wish to compete and colorful plumage which politicians display to prove how “caring” and “egalitarian” they are; both, instead, use it largely as a tool to monopolize market segments and line their own pockets; perverting capitalism into cronyism. 

          When you consider the effectiveness of government in solving all our problems you should truly ponder why all of governments “wars” of morality such as the one on drugs and the one on poverty have only resulted in more of both.  Certainly, in the thousands of years of human history it is unlikely that humans have only recently gone bad; perhaps, we should realize that government has the anti-Midas effect of turning everything it touches into crap instead of gold.

 

Why warnings of tyranny must not be "rejected."

Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.

                                                     -Barack H. Obama,

                                                                    -2013 Ohio St. Commencement

 

           Actually, what they suggest is that any government is predisposed to usurp the liberties of its people.  What they would suggest is that trust in a government official merely at their own behest is unwise at best and disastrous at worst.  But, to be completely honest, it is not the government official for whom we must fear attempted subjugation; instead, it is “from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents” (James Madison, 1788).  It is the tyranny of some oppressive majority.  Generally, though, a single figure stands ready to exact the pound of flesh which this majority so dearly desires. 

           “Reject these voices” Obama tells young people…or, perhaps in other words: “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”  Indeed, the manifestation of a threat to liberty has and will always be a single figure.  Is Obama that figure to be feared?  Who knows, only time can bear that out; however, I suspect he is only one of the puppets opening the show.  The proverbial hand up his back, as with other leaders before him, has been our neighbors and family members and perhaps even ourselves.  Eagerly our populace has stood ready to pull the handle for whomever promises to subdue ideological enemies and punish others for our own self-victimization.  The choice has largely been either those people willing to seize the property of one man for the benefit of another; or, on the other hand, seize one’s liberty to appease the conscience of another.  Both are mere perversions of liberty and, I would assert, share the same outcome:  slavery. 

           There is, however, shelter from the looming storm of statism.  Unfortunately, the concept of liberty appears far too risky for those who never lived without it—sloth likely is our greatest sin.  Liberty is merely a punch-line for people like Obama and Bush.  For two “truths” resonate loudly for both:  1) the people cannot be trusted with liberty, and 2) most of us are more than happy to trade it for payments in-kind.  Our weakness invites the shackles that will bind us, be they real or figurative.  Ronald Reagan once said:

Socialists…can provide you shelter, fill your belly with bacon and beans, treat you when you’re ill, all the things guaranteed to a prisoner or slave.

This may be the best characterization of socialisms’ ill-fated pursuit.   Despite popular opinion, however, the socialists ride on donkeys and elephants; and we should be wary of both. 

            What then are those of us who yearn for liberty to do—where is our shelter?  Not coincidentally, the “they” who Obama speaks of are very much the same as the “they” who founded our great nation.  And those great minds and greater men gave us a weapon to defend ourselves from tyranny.  They armed us with words whose sole purpose was to warn us of tyranny and provide the tools to defend ourselves from it:  the Bill of Rights. 

           What is the Bill of Rights?  In school it is an inconvenience we have to remember for one test.  In our adult life it is only the 1^st Amendment (part of it, anyway) for Democrats and simply the 2^nd and 10^th for Republicans.  But, in a broader sense its purpose was the explicit outline of what tyranny may look like.  In fact, if tyranny was not even a possibility, the Bill of Rights would be unnecessary.  Furthermore, for those who claim the mere age of the Constitution is proof of its own irrelevance and short-sightedness; they would be wise to appreciate that it is the very blanket of liberty which keeps us warm at night.

            For example, in the last couple of years alone, the news has been filled with government acts which challenge the:

• 1^st Amendment (“Obamacare” and the Catholic Church; Rosen from Fox News, etc.)

• 2^nd Amendment (gun control efforts)

•  4^th Amendment (NSA data collection, phone tapping, etc.)

• 5^th Amendment (illegal government takings during TARP)

• 6^th Amendment (NDAA)

• 8^th Amendment (NDAA, again)

• 9^th Amendment (the one the statists of neither party like)

• 10^th Amendment (Obamacare and unfunded mandates on states)

            Maybe the guys in the powdered wigs were on to something, huh?  Simply put, our Constitution and the first ten amendments were designed to protect us from our government; and ensure we have the tools with which to protect ourselves from it.  This is true even when an over-zealous majority threatens to exercise the government’s monopoly on violence to make us behave in a way which pleases them.  It would be fair to say that distrust of government is the founding principle upon which our great republic (not democracy) was built.  We would be wise to heed these warnings, not reject them; the cheap parlor trick of the politician is an illusory idea that we are safe because we are Americans.  Instead, to retain the freedoms encapsulated in what Martin Luther King, Jr. referred to as the “promissory note to which every American was to fall heir” we must remain ever-vigilant.  I leave you with these words:

Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race.  Ignorant—they have been cheated; asleep—they have been surprised; divided—the yoke has been forced upon them.  But what is the lesson?  That because the people may betray themselves, they ought to give themselves up, blindfold, to those who have an interest in betraying them?  Rather conclude that the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it.

                                                                               -James Madison, 1792

               

 

The unicorn that is the "living wage."

          I have often times found myself pondering the question:  Why do people often use terms like “living wage” without understanding the implications of arbitrarily paying someone a sum of money for any job?  Then, tonight, it hit me; finally a way to communicate the reason why incomes are as they are and why arbitrariness cannot be the status quo in incomes.  What I realized is that many people believe that dollars themselves carry an inherent value that is not dependent on actual output of production; however, they are merely what is referred to as a medium of exchange. 

          Dollars (or any other fiat currency) are only valuable when they represent some certain level of output—simply put, dollars represent our labor, and more importantly the value of our productive time.  Certainly a common reaction to this would be to indicate that no single person’s time or labor is worth more (or significantly so) than anyone else’s.  This reaction would, of course, be tragically wrong.  In fact, I am not sure whether it is possible for a response to be more wrong.  And the error of this response lends itself to the common misconception of capitalism itself which is that capitalism enslaves the consumer and worker to some mystical, greedy producer; but, that is a subject for another time.

           Back to money.  See, what triggered this train of thought was a “meme” that spoke of the presumed evil of Wal-Mart not paying their employees a “living wage” (interestingly, I found out that “living wage” can be abbreviated as B.S.) and because of this crime of “greed” others are saddled with their health care costs.  Not a single mention of the Wal-Mart employee’s inability to produce a commensurate amount as what they consume…no, it is all Wal-Mart’s fault.  {Before I go any further I would like to point out that if all the people who whine about Wal-Mart stopped actually shopping there, the problem they insist exists would remedy itself!}

          But, for argument’s sake let us imagine that Wal-Mart began paying their employees an arbitrarily high salary for the work they do (read:  for the amount of revenues they produce for the company).  Here would be the results (and if you do not believe me, please feel free to open your own retail store and pay your employees this “living wage” fantasy of which you speak and see how long before you close up shop—in the pool I would like to put my money on < 1 month):  1) a significant portion of the employees would be let go immediately (this is called being fired); 2) the prices would increase dramatically in the store; 3) people would stop shopping there and employees would be cut again; 4) people would still not shop and pay more; 5) stores would close en masse; and 6) the media would soon be reporting on how the greedy board of Wal-Mart ran the once noble and profitable company into the ground so it would not have to pay its employees a “living wage.”  Finally, Target would realize shortly that their name was not just a name anymore as the moochers would be fast onto them for a pound of flesh. 

          See, by looking at money as just an item that is valuable in itself we ignore the fact that all money, fiat or not, requires backing.  It is, ultimately, no different than the barter system except we remove (or dramatically reduce) the transaction cost of bartering.  For example, if you earn $20/hr. making one widget per hour and seek to take your $20 and purchase a $20 game for your X-Box, you are fundamentally trading one hour of your life producing to buy the game; thus the game costs one hour of your production and the monetary assignment is irrelevant.  Likewise, if your co-worker takes two hours to produce the same widget and therefore gets paid $10/hr. do you think the game company should charge him less so it remains a one hour/game ratio or should your employer pay him equally even though he produces half as much as you do? 

          I know it is easy to buy into the idea that people are victims, but that is not how pricing works and this includes the price of labor.  If a person really believes their productive output exceeds their current pay, this would make them a potential asset to another firm and would present them with a great opportunity to be employed elsewhere.  However, if you inquire as to the pay of others in your same profession with equal amount of experience and find there is not a significant difference, then you can be assured you are receiving what the market can bear for your labors and must endeavor to increase your skill level to move beyond that point.  Not look for an arbitrary raise.

Government Agencies are Used for Political Purposes...Say It Ain't So

            Amidst all the incredulity that seems to be circling around the recent IRS scandal, I find shock in only one thing—that anyone is truly surprised.  Perhaps much of the fanfare as to the “outrageous” nature of a part of the government, one which is under direct political control, acting in a political manner is merely a front to continue the deception that this type of behavior is not the status quo.  Either those members of Congress grilling the former head of the IRS are naïve idealists or devious in their own right; however, if so many of our “leaders” and the public believe such balderdash, maybe that would explain the frightful fiscal position our country is in. 

            So, how did we get to this point where our government has become a self-interested entity in its own right (not only a recent development)?  Simple…trust; misguided trust to be precise.  We trust those who have positions in government, be they career bureaucrats or elected officials, to have some sort of innate fiduciary responsibility to act in our own best interest.  If this were true, or even remotely possible, those people who hold those positions would be above human nature and the natural tendency toward their own rational self-interest. 

            If we assume these mythological fiduciaries do in fact exist, what precisely might be their motivation to take this philosophical high-road and sacrifice themselves to others?  Perhaps the working theory would be altruism; however, true altruism is about as realistic as unicorns and dragons or weight loss plans centered on the consumption of chocolate.  Alternately, it is our (human’s) desire to be saved which allows us to be deceived and encourages those who deceive us to act in a devious manner.  Conceivably, some have a deep yearning to see the best in others, particularly those who “serve the public”; but this does not explain our complete unwillingness to accept reality. 

            We believe the bill of goods the politicians sell us because we wish it were true.  We are eager to imagine a world filled with the cotton candy of idealism; however, just like cotton candy, too much idealism will only make us sick and malnourished.  The sad reality is that we are being suckered…willing participants in the political fraud that someone wants to take care of us—all the while we foot the bill for this ill-advised and dangerous fantasy.  We have sadly been proven fools…to grant an arbitrary trust to anyone is certainly foolish and, as Sophocles once said:  “foolishness is indeed the sister of wickedness.”    

 

Please take a few minutes to like us at Facebook:  LibertySquandered

Understanding the Motives of the Secular Movement.

Abstract:

This paper seeks to explore first a brief history of the First Amendment freedoms of religion.  Second, the nature of the conflict between those who support a literal interpretation of the free exercise of religion and those who believe free and, particularly, open exercise should be limited.  Why are public prayer, particularly in schools and expression of religious belief considered something to be feared by the secularists; and, furthermore, is it unreasonable to expect those who worship and pray to do so in private?  Additionally, what are the motives of those who wish to suppress public displays of religious expression?  Finally, who are the people who make up the secular movement in America which leads the opposition to public displays of religious beliefs?

 

            Religion has played a tremendous role in both the colonization of America and the birth of the United States.  People fleeing religious control and persecution traveled in droves to the New World, with hopes of the ability to worship freely.  The Founders believed it to be fundamental to protect the free exercise of religion and sought to immortalize this concept in their founding document and principal law.  However, as the years, decades, and centuries have past, what free exercise means has been contested.  The secularist movement advocates the freedom to worship (seemingly) only in private while proponents of a more broad understanding of the concept believe the freedom to exercise should be relatively unlimited.  This is a political battle that tears away at the very fabric of this nation and promises to only heighten in the coming years. 

            From the ‘discovery’ of the New World, religion played an integral part of its formation and development.  Additionally, the Great Awakening served as the “original dynamic of the continental movement for independence” (Johnson, 1997, p. 204).  With a foundation so steeped in religious tradition it is rather amazing that religion was not ordained by the state and that the founders held so stridently to the belief that people should be free to choose whether and how to worship.  To the founders then and many today, it is important that the ability to exercise their religious beliefs be free of government intrusion.  Just as they knew the risks of executive tyranny, legislative tyranny, and majoritarian tyranny; they had also known that religion could be tyrannical.  James Madison wrote this on June 20, 1785: 

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects” (1997, p. 191)?

Madison, as did many founders, knew that any group or faction could easily, if unchecked, exert enough power to control or limit the liberties of another group; and religious groups were not above this temptation either, which is a proven historical fact.  It was the understanding of the existence of a “degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust” that was the inspiration for the rule of law laid out in the Constitution and his subsequent writing of the First Amendment (Madison, Federalist 55, pg. 314).  Ultimately, the essence of the First Amendment’s guarantees of free exercise and the freedom from a government ordained establishment of religion was to defend the rights of those people to engage in what may be, from time to time, unpopular practices and beliefs; and to inhibit the government from prescribing upon the people any singular religious institution.

             The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  These terms, although simple, are unequivocal and leave no practical or substantial room for interpretation; any laws made by Congress either restricting or endorsing religion could easily be considered unconstitutional.  The First Amendment “stands primarily as a bulwark for religious liberty for all men…freedom of conscience is beyond the control of any civil authority” (Dawson, 1959, pg.667).  Somewhere along the way, however, the argument shifted from the preservation of a right of people to engage in their faith to an argument of constitutionality which serves to inhibit individuals and groups from such an engagement.  Clearly the intent was to remove government from determining religious affiliation, and religious establishments from directly impacting governmental decisions; but recently it has been viewed as a tool to control inconvenient and moderately unpopular expression of religion; particularly in public. 

This is not to say that contradiction has not always surrounded the First Amendment’s religious protections.  It could easily be said that the controversy somewhat began with the First Congress’ hiring of paid chaplains in 1789.  Madison’s own writings illustrate his distaste of this practice and his view that the concept of congressional chaplains was unconstitutional because, as he wrote in a memorandum after 1817:  “the Constitution forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.  The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives…to be paid out of the national taxes…Does not this involve the principal of a national establishment” (1997, pg. 87). 

Ironically, Chief Justice Burger, in the decision written for Marsh v. Chambers references this very early congressional action of hiring chaplains.  Marsh v. Chambers was a suit began by Ernest Chambers, a member of the Nebraska legislature, in which he asserted that the practice of maintaining a paid chaplain violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.  In the Court’s finding, which reversed the lower court’s ruling, Chief Justice Burger drew a correlation between the actions of the First Congress and the tradition of the Nebraska legislature.  Furthermore, Chief Justice Burger (1983) asserted that it must be Constitutional when he stated:

“It can hardly be thought that, in the same week, Members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each House and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable” (Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783).

However logical his conclusion may seem on the surface, what the Chief Justice ignored was the sentiment of the man, James Madison, who drafted the amendment.   Chief Justice Burger’s evidence on this ruling was largely circumstantial and based on the assumption that the act of the First Congress in hiring chaplains, by default, proved the constitutionality of the Nebraska legislature’s practice. 

The modern secular argument is that a separation of church and state was created in the First Amendment, which is fundamentally accurate.  In fact, the phrase “wall of separation” was used by Thomas Jefferson; referring to the idea that one should not affect the other.  This concept of a “wall of separation” evolved into the common terminology of modern times, “separation of church and state.”  Separation of church and state has become the battle cry of the secular movement, which has gained remarkable popularity in recent decades.  The effort to suppress some forms of public worship and public display has made the First Amendment a weapon to be used against the ‘enemies’ of the secularists.  

            School prayer is probably the most contested area of this battle between the two groups.  In a line of court rulings beginning with Engel v. Vitale (1962) there has been a gradual fight to all but extinguish the practice.   The contention in Engel was that a local New York school district, “acting on the recommendation of the New York Board of Regents, adopted a resolution directing the daily recitation” of a prayer (Kauper, 1963, pg. 1033).  Furthermore, the rule carried no provision for the allowance of students not wishing to participate to refrain, but there was instruction within it that “no child was to be required or encouraged to join in the prayer” (Kauper, 1963, pg. 1033).  This regulation was ultimately ruled by the Court to be unconstitutional and, as Justice Black wrote, “by using its school system to encourage recitation of the Regents’ prayer…has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause” (Kauper, 1963, pg. 1037).  However, this was not an unreasonable ruling and did not serve to fully foreshadow the battle to come. 

            Just one year later, the Supreme Court was “called upon to consider the scope of the provision of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution” in School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203(Justice Clark, 1963).  In Schempp, the contest was over a state law which required that:

“At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day.  Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon the written request of his parent or guardian” (Justice Black, 1963). 

It was contended that this law violated the application of the First Amendment of the Constitution to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.   The Court ruled that this law did in fact violate the Establishment Clause as it pertains to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.  However, Justice Clark (1963) wrote in the decision of the Court a test for the determination of what does or does not constitute an encroachment upon the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise:

“What are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion, then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that, to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause, there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion…The Free Exercise Clause, likewise considered many times here, withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions thereof by civil authority. Hence, it is necessary in a free exercise case for one to show the coercive effect of the enactment as it operates against him in the practice of his religion.

Once again, this seems to have been a reasonable assertion under the First Amendment; however, as the years moved forward, there has been an effort to do more than merely prevent government organizations from instituting religious practices in school.  Instead, the trend has been to create a barrier between people and religion when in the public view.  

Should a school, school board, or even a state impose religious practices on school children?  Being that schools and school boards are government entities, the constitutional legitimacy of public school mandated prayer or worship seems to be easily relatable to the words of Madison and Justice Black.  Since the Schempp ruling, however, the lines have blurred a bit.  The struggle between those who advocate an unobstructed freedom to worship in any setting and the secular movement has grown bitter in recent decades.  From cases on the constitutionality of student led prayer, as was the case in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe to cases as to whether a high school coach may kneel along with his players during student led prayer; the question we need to ask may be why there is such fervent opposition to any public expression of religious faith?  Is it a restriction of one’s civil liberties if another nearby is praying?  What precisely is the endgame?

Perhaps the most relevant question when determining the motivation behind the attempts to restrict religion and consign it to a private and controlled behavior is:  What is the secular movement that drives these attempts?  As the history of opposition to certain public displays of religion has been laid out we can see the reasonable become the absurd.  Why must our society be cleansed of ‘faith?’  It does not seem to be the concept of faith which drives this movement, but which people have faith that feeds the urgency, particularly the young of the nation.  Perhaps it is not any God or religion that the secularists deplore, but the desire to replace that central figure which is the goal.  Simply put, it may be that the secularists do not dislike God; they just wish to have His job. 

The secular movement has traditionally been a small and rather unpopular movement in America, tied often to the progressive movement; and this is no coincidence.  The movement in itself shows signs of religious tendencies and has always “expected that a progressive, secular ‘kingdom’ would emerge as societies threw off a primitive theistic mindset and matured into educated adulthood” (Cimino & Smith, 2007, pg. 407).  Secular humanism in the U.S. is rooted in religious humanism, with these roots found in the Unitarian and Universalist ideology that emerged after a “segment of Congregational churches in the eighteenth century rejected such key Christian doctrines as the Trinity and the teaching that God can condemn people to hell” (Cimino & Smith, 2007, pg. 407).  In effect, secularism is its own religion and feels compelled to compete directly with other religions for followers.  The growth of secularism began greatly during the late nineteenth and throughout the twentieth century; as the movement picked up momentum we can see the assaults on traditional religious beliefs begin to increase and become more specified (Cimino & Smith, 2007, pg. 408).  By increasing their focus on reframing the beliefs of society through children, through the constant challenges to any form of religious practice in school; we can more easily begin to divine the secularist intent. 

The movement to control as much of the religious consumption of school-aged children was seen in recent years when a young girl at a small-town public high school in Pace, Florida was barred from delivering the valedictorian speech at her graduation.  Amidst other church-state controversies being raised at her school by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) the young girl, a Christian, promised to include a prayer in her remarks.  This was seen as a threat by the secularists at the ACLU and as part of their settlement with the high school gained inclusion of a provision to prevent a prayer in the student speeches.  Thus, she was not allowed to speak and forced to forfeit the honor that was, or should have been, the result of her efforts and studies.  The ACLU viewed her to be a representative of the school and faculty due to her honors and, by giving a prayer, would then have been considered to violate the Establishment Clause.  Did this young lady pose a threat to other children or adults in the audience who did not share her same religious views?  It is unlikely, and because she was viewed as such, she was robbed of her right to exercise both her religious beliefs and the rewards of her efforts; both seem to be worthy objectives of the secularists.

Karl Marx (1848) wrote in the Communist Manifesto that:

“Undoubtedly, it will be said, religious, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development.  But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.  There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society.  But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience” (pgs. 33-34).

This is goal of the secular movement; to abolish religion and morality and replace it with its own ‘truths’ and morals.  Mere modification of traditional norms and mores of society is insufficient to meet the goals; instead a complete cleaning of the slate is required.  There is no better place to enact such a shift in philosophy and faith than in the most formative and influential part of the population for the future of the nation.  The state must replace God as the center of all praise, thanks, and prayer; for it is the state which serves as the Providence of the secular movement.  In the case of Lenin, who called for the complete elimination of religion, folk stories began to arise very shortly after his death claiming he was immortal and had risen from the dead to keep watch over the Soviet power (Tumarkin, 1981, pgs. 36-37).  This imagery runs very similar with the messianic figure found in Christianity, and this is likely not a coincidence.  Tumarkin (1981) further points out that in order for Marxism to survive in Russia, it had to “accommodate to that nation’s spiritual climate” (pg. 38).  Ultimately, for Lenin to put his plan into effect, he would have to become the “god” that the people of Russia so very much needed.  We can see similarities in modern day communist regimes; where the leaders often attempt to portray themselves as something beyond human.  Images of communist leaders can seem to cover the landscape of the nations they lead for the purpose of transcending simple human leadership and create an image of them as a god or savior.  

            Eugene Schoenfeld (1985), Georgia State University, published a study designed to test the theories of Marx and Engels which asserted that religion “induces a sense of commitment and loyalty to the ruling elite” (pg. 178).  Schoenfeld’s focus was on the relationship between people who engage in religious adherence and their level of loyalty to the President of the United States.  If Marx and Engels assertions were accurate, Schoenfeld expected to find a direct correlation between people who attend church and pray and their level of loyalty to the primary ‘ruling’ figure of American politics, the president.  Schoenfeld (1985) noted that Marxist doctrine states that the interests of the “ruling class…are safeguarded by theologically defined rules” (pg. 179).  While Schoenfeld’s study found a correlation between church attendance, it also found an inverse relationship between prayer and loyalty to the president (1985, pg. 186).  Schoenfeld (1985) indicated that the most important factor weighing on loyalty to a ruling elite was based on the adherence to the collective practices of religion and not the religion in itself (pg. 186). 

            It seems a bit ironic that if Marx truly believed religion enhanced loyalty to a leader or a collective that he would not want such loyalty to serve the collective of his socialist utopia.  Such an adherence to collectivism and the acceptance of the communal preeminence would seem quite advantageous in maintaining proper levels of production that could support the socialist dream.  Combining that logical deficiency with the practical deistic awe paid to communist rulers, it seems perhaps Marx’s words were a ploy to incite his proletariat against the establishment that threatened his dream the most; religion.  For Marx’s utopian fantasy to be a plausible reality, it would be the collective that must be worshipped and shown deference to.

            Nineteenth century economist and author Frederic Bastiat did much of his writing just before and immediately following the French Revolution of 1848, when a socialist frenzy was engulfing France.  Bastiat (1850) identified the doublespeak of Marx and Engels in reference to religion and its supposed deficiencies while claiming righteousness of the socialist cause when he wrote:

“But we assure the socialist that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization.  We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association.  We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity.  We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility.  We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence” (pg. 29).

Bastiat saw clearly the hypocrisy of the proposition that religion should be ceased only to replace it with one of another form that instead had its foundation in a new kind of fraternity based on the worship of the state and the collective.  Although Bastiat’s view was framed in a very deistic fashion similar to that of our own founders; he clearly recognized that it was the desire of the socialists to replace religion, not merely abolish it.  We meet the same challenges today as the secular progressive movement attempts to fundamentally dispel the legitimacy of religion and to replace that institution with one that comes in the form of the state.    

            The true mastery of the secular movement is that it has framed the argument as being religion versus freedom when, ultimately, the secular view is that freedom will come through proper regulation and control of the population; particularly in religious practice.  They do not wish to maintain that people are free to believe, but that instead they appear to believe that freedom will be obtained when people are not bound by their current beliefs.  Certainly, people are restrained by their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.  If a person subscribes to the ideas of Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam is irrelevant; they will be bound to certain behavior through their specific belief structure.  The flaw in the secular argument is that being ‘free’ from religious preconceptions will create a society of elevated freethinkers.  In fact, with religion extracted from the equation, a new belief system will most certainly fill in the gaps; as the saying goes, nature hates a vacuum. 

            The mere concept of civilization requires us to follow some sort of norms and we can see much disparity between different civilizations view of what is normal, acceptable, and required.  However, the constant that exist in all societies is that there are norms, mores, and laws that dictate and control the actions of each society’s members.  If it were true that the secularists wish to eliminate the existence of these norms, the result could only be an anarchist society filled with, potentially, 350 million separate societies that consist of one member each.  Secularists are not so naïve to believe this would be a tenable situation; instead, their goal is a shift of the paradigm of existing moral precepts to a new morality and even a new reality.  By eliminating the dichotomy of differing belief systems, it becomes easier to replace with a unitary belief structure.  The means of producing this new reality in the United States relies heavily on time because the odds of a violent and instantaneous uprising that would bring about such a change is much less likely than it was during the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.  The capitalist economy has performed far beyond that which Marx ever imagined and the existence of a large middle class is an obstacle to radical and immediate change.  Therefore to aid in such a shift it is a foundational necessity that beliefs and morality must be circumvented in order to accelerate the change that the secular progressives desire. 

            The issue at hand is not so much that people hold beliefs or have faith, but more of what those beliefs and that faith is in.  The dominant religious philosophy in America is Christianity and it should come as no surprise that Christianity is the primary religion that is under assault by the secularists.  Minority religions maintain a heightened level of protection by secularist groups with the understanding that it is the largest section of the population that must be first controlled.  Through a natural competition that exists among religions, much the same as exists in commerce, the minority religions then become an ally of the secular movement; as the proverb goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Once a large enough of a majority joins the secular mindset, the minority religions would pose little resistance to the newly established status quo of ‘faith.’  Certainly, this sounds conspiratorial, but is rooted in historical fact.  It is despots and dictators who wish to control religious practice because if you can control the foundational beliefs of a people, you then easily control them.  It is the process of introducing a new norm into society, one that allows a rewrite of historical experiences that is the challenge.

            Religion occupies a position of significance in all societies; it is the perfect mechanism for controlling populations and often answers questions which would otherwise be unanswerable.  Fear is a central determiner of individual and societal behavior from a religious perspective.  Whether it is a fear of the unknown, the fear of consequences for ‘sinful’ behavior, or the fear of being disassociated; religions are naturally suited for population control through basic human fear and anxieties. Additionally, they provide comfort to their followers through a promise of an eventual reward.  Religion assures its members that regardless of current strife, adherence to the provisions of the religion will assure them a better reward than can be imagined.  We find similar attempts at assurance in the progressive movement, consequences for dissident behavior, and the promise that the questions of life can be answered through the proper changes in individual behavior.  The correlation between government and religion does exist and it is the religious freedom in America that prevents the progressive view of government from fully taking its place as the singular sovereign over the minds of the people. 

            Schoenfeld (1985) concluded his aforementioned study by pointing out about religion that:

“Instead of supporting the power elite has been in the forefront of revolutions…there are some elements in religion which do not bind the individual to the dominant culture and do not instill loyalty to the ruling elite, but to the contrary, free the individual from the social bonds and social constraints…In short, we propose that praying does not bind the individual to the collective, does not provide for the social cohesion a function which has been attributed to religion, but, instead frees the praying individual (pg. 187).”

Perhaps it is for this reason that prayer, particularly in public settings, is a threat to the secular progressive cause.  Prayer does not enslave its practitioners, or serve as the opium of the people as Marx suggested, but instead releases those who engage in the activity from the potential bondage of a society or any immoral changes within a given society.  It is of great importance that we delve deeper into the topic than the cursory explanation for the war on public prayer.  For such an non-invasive practice to cause so much emotional response on those not engaged in it is peculiar and should be seen as a warning sign.  It is reasonable to wish to reduce the likelihood of any type of government forced indoctrination; however, mainstream religion does not threaten us with this.  Instead it appears to give those who practice it a weapon against indoctrination, a shield from the enslavement of the mind, and a moral ground from which to make decisions throughout life; it hardly seems reasonable that this would be a threat to the spirit of the United States or the laws from which it was established.

 

 

References

Bastiat, Frederic (1996).  The Law.  (Dean Russell, Trans.).  Hudson, NY:  Foundation for Economic Education.  (Original work published 1850).

Cimino, R. & Smith, C. (2007).  “Secular Humanism and Atheism beyond Progressive Secularism.”  Sociology of Religion, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Winter, 2007). 

Dawson, Joseph M. (2008).  “The Meaning of Separation of Church and State in the First Amendment.”  Journal of Church and State, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Autumn 2008).  

Kauper, Paul G. (1963).  “Prayer, Public Schools and the Supreme court.”  Michigan Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 6 (Apr., 1963), pp. 1031-1068.  

Johnson, Paul (1998).  “A History of the American People.”  New York, NY:  Harper Collins Publishers.

Madison, James (1997).  James Madison’s “Advice to My Country.”  D.B. Mattern (Ed.).  Charlottesville, VA.:  The University Press of Virginia.

Madison, James (1999 Edition).  The Federalist Papers (#55).  C. Rossiter (Ed.).  New York, NY: New American Library, a division of Penguin Putnam, Inc.

Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich (2004 edition).  The Communist Manifesto.  New York, NY:  Bantam Dell, a division of Random House, Inc. (English edition originally published 1888).

Schoenfeld, Eugen (1985).  “Religion and Loyalty to the Political Elite:  The Case of the Presidency.”  Review of Religious Research, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Dec., 1985).

Tumarkin, Nina (1981).  “Religion, Bolshevism, and the Origins of the Lenin Cult.”  Russian Review, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan., 1981), pp. 35-46.

U.S. Supreme Court (1983).  Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783.  

U.S. Supreme Court (1963).  School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania  v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203. 

U.S. Supreme Court (2000).  Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290.            

 

The Dangerous Illusion of "Good Intentions"

            Good intentions…it has been said that they pave the road to hell. So, why is it our society is much more concerned with intentions and finds results to be somewhat irrelevant?  Our entire political culture is preoccupied with the idea that as long as things are well-intentioned then the results do not matter.  For example, I am sure you have heard the line that “labor unions once served a very important role in relieving the worker from oppressive employers.”  This statement presupposes, in error, that because there was once a justifiable purpose for unions that they should now receive increased latitude in viewing their actions.  This is an illogical view, the intellectual equivalent of saying that since a sports team was at one point good in the 1970s that they are, by default, still good. 

            Social Security was started with (supposed) good intentions, but the results have been to make generations of people dependent on a system which only guarantees them a horrible quality of life (if that is the extent of their retirement planning).  The Federal Reserve was started to reduce the occurrence of panics and twenty years later their monetary policy triggered the start of the Great Depression (not to mention the hand they had in the recent “Great Recession”).  The poor policy of the Fed was only made more damaging by the isolationist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act signed by Hoover to, in part, limit competition from imports and help increase employment [note:  Hoover was not even relatively close to being a “laissez-faire” capitalist; a lot of history teachers and political pundits could sure use reading a history book or two on this one].  All passed with good intentions and all became bricks on the road to hell.      

            Another familiar tagline of the day is that “if one life can be spared, we must do something”; well, if this were true we would make cars illegal (or at the very least increase standards for driver’s licenses), make all structures no taller than eight feet because roofers have fallen off and died, or make bicycles illegal so little Timmy does not ride into traffic.  We could make a long list of arbitrary assignments to such a statement, but we do not for obvious reasons:  because it is absurdly ignorant.  Still yet, we allow ourselves to be deceived by emotionally persuasive arguments while those arguing the point obfuscate the reality of the circumstance.  This lack of rational thinking weakens our ability to make good choices and dooms our nation to the oblivion of debt and a rapidly decreasing level of liberty. 

            An emotional state of mind and the decisions that result from them are by definition irrational and should be avoided.  Have you ever heard of a murderer pleading that they were temporarily logical to get out of the consequences of their crime?  Of course not, they are temporarily insane; or, in other words, they are temporarily overrun with emotions that led to poor decision making.  Tiger and bear cubs are cute and cuddly looking, but we do not take them home as pets because of the dangerous monsters they become.  The same is true for legislation and whatever crap is spewing out of the mouths of politicians…we must consider the ramifications of such actions and decide whether the long-term results are something that is sustainable, or if those “well-intentioned actions” will eventually be the tiger that grew up to eat us.  

            Along the same train of thought, “shared-sacrifice” is another often utilized term of the statists.  So I will leave you with a quote to consider when politicians [yeah, the ones who ride in limos and managed to somehow accumulate millions of dollars of wealth on an approximately $150,000/year salary…] speak to us as needing to “sacrifice”:

It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.

—Ayn Rand